Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65

Thread: Welcome Austin McCullough

  1. #31
    Loyal Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    I'd disagree with the idea that there are only 40 or so recruits each year who will help your team. It might be true that somewhere around that number will have an immediate and significant positive impact on your team as a freshman, but there are a lot of players who develop over the course of 2-4 years into surprisingly good players and most good programs have a fair number of such guys. The trick is spotting them before they've done that. And coaching them up. On that point I agree with you.

    What I like about the newest recruits is that two of three are shooters and we need shooters. What I think we will miss way more than you seem to is Charlie Moore.
    I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that when I did the spreadsheet for the top 100 ranked recruits, that I followed each recruit for all his years in college, whether he was one and done, or played 4 straight years, or missed a year with injury or transferring and stayed 5 years to play 4 years, and all the player had to do to was to live up to his ranking for just one season of his possible 4 seasons, and then I considered him to have had a successful college career.

    As to Moore, I didn’t mean to demean Moore in any way, just stating what I felt were my observations. He needed to be better on defense and he needed to get better at taking care of the ball. He was inconsistent. But he did many things very well. He played very, very well for a freshman, and I will miss him, absolutely.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that when I did the spreadsheet for the top 100 ranked recruits, that I followed each recruit for all his years in college, whether he was one and done, or played 4 straight years, or missed a year with injury or transferring and stayed 5 years to play 4 years, and all the player had to do to was to live up to his ranking for just one season of his possible 4 seasons, and then I considered him to have had a successful college career.

    As to Moore, I didn’t mean to demean Moore in any way, just stating what I felt were my observations. He needed to be better on defense and he needed to get better at taking care of the ball. He was inconsistent. But he did many things very well. He played very, very well for a freshman, and I will miss him, absolutely.
    If I'm not mistaken, you only chose one year to evaluate. Do the same research over a 10-year period and you're likely to notice more variance. Certain years will have more Top 100 or Top 150 recruits "pan out" than others.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by oskidunker View Post
    Hopefully we are not just getting bodies
    At this point that's all they are until you see them on the court. Tapes and background stories are all great but until you see a guy on the court you don't know if you have a Chauca or a Wallace. Jone's commits so far seem to have good basketball type frames which is a good thing. This latest guy plays football too and has a good frame, so we'll see...

    Go Bears!

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    I agree wholeheartedly with you. SFBearz has already prejudged the new players who were recruited to play the spots vacated by Moore and Baker. Even if he had seen these recruits play in person, how could he know whether Winston, Harris-Dyson and Knell would not be as good as Moore and Baker? Moore was a good player for us, but not without his weaknesses, upon which he would have had to improve a good deal to become an outstanding player for us. As for Baker, how would SFBearz know how good a player he is going to be in college, any more than he would know the recruits we now have are not good? There are many college coaches out there who are paid millions of dollars, whose jobs depend on their evaluations of high school players and transfers, and all of them have had their misses, recruits who don’t pan out for one reason or another.

    I posted a spreadsheet on the BI a year or so ago, looking at the top 100 ranked recruits for one year, to see how many of them lived up their ranking, either becoming a good individual college player, or becoming a player who helped his team to win their conference or make a run in the NCAA. What I found was that only 40% of those recruits lived up to those rankings. The majority of those successful players were in the top 30 ranked players. Ranked lower than that, it was basically a crap shoot.

    SFBearz, along with many, or maybe even most Cal fans, probably pin their hopes on the recruit rankings, but how many times do we have to get let down to keep doing this? Wasn’t the failure of two seasons ago, when Cal had a team of highly ranked players, or the failure back in the Leon Powe era when Cal was again loaded with highly ranked players enough to get us to stop placing all our hopes on recruit rankings? Or to go way back in time, the team of all-time great players Truitt, Ridgle, Chenier, CJ, and Coughran? As Amarillo Slim, the great poker player said, “Never bet on anything that eats.”

    What I like to bet on is coaches. Every one of those teams I just mentioned did not have good coaching. Usually you need some thoroughbreds to win, but it takes a special coach to be able to handle these stars, and their egos, to get them to work together. They need special handling, special care. They have always been the best at every level, and they don’t usually know how to share the ball with other great players, nor do they usually work hard on defense. The lower ranked or even unranked players are usually more malleable and coachable.

    Cal fans need to face facts. There are only 40 players recruited each year, give or take a few, who will help your team, and most of those will be snapped up by the big dogs, Kentucky, Duke, Florida, Kansas and so forth. Cal has academic standards higher than the Arizonas of the world, which will always limit recruiting somewhat. So you have to have a coach who has a system, and who will recruit players who might fit, and evaluate a recruit’s ability to be coached so he fits into his system, so they can be better than the sum of their parts, the sum of their recruit rankings. These may include some lower ranked players, or even unranked ones.

    I like the look of these new recruits, and the word “teamwork” seems to be on the radar of at least some of them. Wyking Jones has piqued my interest, and I want to see how he coaches offense and defense. I can hardly wait until the season begins.
    If you followed recruiting or knew something about how and why recruits are ranked you would have the answers to your questions but instead you repeat the same lost argument year after year....

  5. #35
    Moore is clearly a loss, based on the eye test. He was on the Jerome Randall path, and was, IMHO, ahead of Jerome on some factors. I would agree that one positive for what Jones has done so far is that he's tried to recruit to address our immediate need, which is outside shooting, based on these guys' records in high school and AAU. Will that translate to Division I. There's no way of knowing until they step on the court for real. But we have to be realistic. Cal is never going to have recruiting classes consisting entirely of 4* and 5* players unless the academic standards are dropped, and unless we want to go more fully into one-and-done land. I don't want to compromise the school's basic mission by doing either of those things just to win basketball games. Therefore, I'm hoping Jones can get a mix of players who come in with great talent, and those can be coached up to improve significantly once they get here. I think it's possible to do that and get back into the top 3 of the conference.

  6. #36
    Loyal Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Moore is clearly a loss, based on the eye test. He was on the Jerome Randall path, and was, IMHO, ahead of Jerome on some factors. I would agree that one positive for what Jones has done so far is that he's tried to recruit to address our immediate need, which is outside shooting, based on these guys' records in high school and AAU. Will that translate to Division I. There's no way of knowing until they step on the court for real. But we have to be realistic. Cal is never going to have recruiting classes consisting entirely of 4* and 5* players unless the academic standards are dropped, and unless we want to go more fully into one-and-done land. I don't want to compromise the school's basic mission by doing either of those things just to win basketball games. Therefore, I'm hoping Jones can get a mix of players who come in with great talent, and those can be coached up to improve significantly once they get here. I think it's possible to do that and get back into the top 3 of the conference.
    +100. Very well said.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by k9dog1 View Post
    At this point that's all they are until you see them on the court. Tapes and background stories are all great but until you see a guy on the court you don't know if you have a Chauca or a Wallace. Jone's commits so far seem to have good basketball type frames which is a good thing. This latest guy plays football too and has a good frame, so we'll see...

    Go Bears!
    Strongly disagree. Anyone can watch tape, and it is easy to see who can't play and who will be great right away. If I knew how to search history I could show you my posts on Chauca (way too slow at that size), Bak Bak (extremely slow reacting to the ball), and Khalil Johnson (too small to play inside, no skills to play on the perimeter). Conversely, players like Powe, Brown, Rabb, and (IMO) Charlie Moore were so good in high school that it was clear they were going to be great right away. It is middle players like McCullough who one can't tell about. He has good size, strength, and shooting ability. One wonders about his lateral quickness and the lack of interest by high majors or even mid majors. Maybe it is because he moved, maybe he did not play enough AAU because he was a multi-sport athlete, maybe he improved (I have not seen old tape). He makes sense in a way that many of Cal's spring recruits over the years have not.

    Sluggo

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by sluggo_Cal View Post
    Strongly disagree. Anyone can watch tape, and it is easy to see who can't play and who will be great right away. If I knew how to search history I could show you my posts on Chauca (way too slow at that size), Bak Bak (extremely slow reacting to the ball), and Khalil Johnson (too small to play inside, no skills to play on the perimeter). Conversely, players like Powe, Brown, Rabb, and (IMO) Charlie Moore were so good in high school that it was clear they were going to be great right away. It is middle players like McCullough who one can't tell about. He has good size, strength, and shooting ability. One wonders about his lateral quickness and the lack of interest by high majors or even mid majors. Maybe it is because he moved, maybe he did not play enough AAU because he was a multi-sport athlete, maybe he improved (I have not seen old tape). He makes sense in a way that many of Cal's spring recruits over the years have not.

    Sluggo
    Even if you weren't good at evaluating talent, you would look to rankings (correlated to college success even if imperfect) and other offers (experts who are betting their jobs on kids after watching full game film, live games, etc). When we land kids with no offers or offers only from low to mid majors and they are unranked or low ranked, the odds are very high they will not help us win a lot of games.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by k9dog1 View Post
    At this point that's all they are until you see them on the court. Tapes and background stories are all great but until you see a guy on the court you don't know if you have a Chauca or a Wallace. Jone's commits so far seem to have good basketball type frames which is a good thing. This latest guy plays football too and has a good frame, so we'll see...

    Go Bears!
    Recruiting rankings and evaluations are far from perfect but they are based on a lot more than tapes and stories. There would be almost no question Wallace would project to be a much better player (and Wallace was not a top 50 recruit).

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Moore is clearly a loss, based on the eye test. He was on the Jerome Randall path, and was, IMHO, ahead of Jerome on some factors. I would agree that one positive for what Jones has done so far is that he's tried to recruit to address our immediate need, which is outside shooting, based on these guys' records in high school and AAU. Will that translate to Division I. There's no way of knowing until they step on the court for real. But we have to be realistic. Cal is never going to have recruiting classes consisting entirely of 4* and 5* players unless the academic standards are dropped, and unless we want to go more fully into one-and-done land. I don't want to compromise the school's basic mission by doing either of those things just to win basketball games. Therefore, I'm hoping Jones can get a mix of players who come in with great talent, and those can be coached up to improve significantly once they get here. I think it's possible to do that and get back into the top 3 of the conference.
    Good post.

    It is important to note that plenty of top 150 ranked kids are eligible to come to Cal. At least a third of them. That's tougher than 98% of other schools but not impossible.

    Also good to recognize that the gap between 4/5 star kids and players like our last two HS recruits is WIDE. We landed two 2017 HS kids with superb academics. Their offer lists from any level of school were either non-existent or tiny. Even if our academics are as restrictive as you assert (and they are likely close IMO), we need to land players with stronger resumes. A couple of guys like this with great grades, characters and some potential upside on the court is fine. Say 1-3 of your 13 man scholarship roster. We enter this year with 5 of them! And that's out of only 10 eligible scholarship players on your roster.

    It now comes down to our landing some big time players in the Fall. It's a must to land impact big men and some guys who clearly have the resume to be stars in the Pac12.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by SFBearz View Post
    Recruiting rankings and evaluations are far from perfect but they are based on a lot more than tapes and stories. There would be almost no question Wallace would project to be a much better player (and Wallace was not a top 50 recruit).
    Tyrone Wallace was a four star, top 100 recruit with other P5 offers. Brandon Chauca was a zero star, unranked player with a couple of mid major offers. It was pretty clear the odds of how they would project

  12. #42
    My viewing of exactly two highlight videos says he's got the potential to be a solid 4 year contributor
    To take a fresh comparison, he has the potential to be comparable +\- to Grant Mullins
    That won't be his freshman year, but if he can track Grant's progression then he's a steal
    By the way, he's taller and more athletic than Grant right now
    ‘I don’t need easy, I need possible.’ Jorge Gutierrez

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by CalHoopFan View Post
    Even if you weren't good at evaluating talent, you would look to rankings (correlated to college success even if imperfect) and other offers (experts who are betting their jobs on kids after watching full game film, live games, etc). When we land kids with no offers or offers only from low to mid majors and they are unranked or low ranked, the odds are very high they will not help us win a lot of games.
    We agree. I think recruiting rankings mean something. I think some Cal fans are thinking, justifiably, that here we go again with a lowly ranked spring prospect. In the Monty/Martin era, the only one I can remember who worked out was Kravish. But to my eye test, which is worth what you paid for it, AM passes. I think his tape is better than Gary Franklin. And I presented reasons why he might have slipped through the cracks. We will have to wait and see, but I am glad he is going to Cal.

    Sluggo

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by sluggo_Cal View Post
    We agree. I think recruiting rankings mean something. I think some Cal fans are thinking, justifiably, that here we go again with a lowly ranked spring prospect. In the Monty/Martin era, the only one I can remember who worked out was Kravish. But to my eye test, which is worth what you paid for it, AM passes. I think his tape is better than Gary Franklin. And I presented reasons why he might have slipped through the cracks. We will have to wait and see, but I am glad he is going to Cal.

    Sluggo
    Kravish had offers from Colorado and Iowa and played for Mo-Kan Elite in the EYBL. Michael Porter and Trae Young just got done playing for that team. I said this a couple of years ago and I'll repeat it--he wasn't overlooked.

  15. #45



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •